It appears that we are experiencing a moment when our workers' movement once again, with irresistible force, leads to those acute clashes which so terrify the government and the propertied classes, and which so encourage and delight the socialists. Yes, these clashes encourage and delight us, despite the enormous number of victims of military reprisal, because through their resistance the working class proves that it will not reconcile itself to its condition, does not wish to remain a slave, does not submit in silence to violence and arbitrary rule. The present order always and inevitably, even in the most peaceful circumstances, inflicts countless sacrifices upon the working class. Thousands and tens of thousands of people, toiling their entire lives to create the wealth of others, perish from starvation and from constant malnutrition, die prematurely from diseases engendered by the abominable conditions of labour, wretched housing, and lack of rest. And a hundredfold does he deserve to be called a hero who prefers to die in direct struggle against the defenders and preservers of this vile order rather than to die the slow death of a downtrodden, exhausted and submissive beast of burden. We by no means wish to say that street combat with the police is the best form of struggle. On the contrary, we have always told the workers that it is in their own interests to make the struggle more calm and measured, to try to direct all discontent toward support for the organized struggle of the revolutionary party. But the principal source nourishing revolutionary social-democracy is precisely that spirit of protest in the working masses which, given the oppression and violence surrounding them, cannot but burst forth from time to time in desperate outbreaks. These outbreaks awaken to conscious life the broadest strata of workers crushed by want and ignorance, spreading among them a spirit of noble hatred toward the oppressors and enemies of freedom. And this is why news of such a bloody battle as that which occurred, for instance, on May 7th at the Obukhov factory, compels us to exclaim: "The workers' uprising has been suppressed, long live the workers' uprising!"

There was a time, and a comparatively very recent one, when workers' uprisings were rare exceptions, provoked only by some particular circumstances. Now it is different. Several years ago we experienced a period of industrial prosperity, when trade was brisk, when demand for workers was great. And yet the workers organized a series of strikes, seeking better working conditions: the workers understood that they must not let the moment slip by, must take advantage precisely of that time when the manufacturers' profits were especially high and they could be more easily forced to make concessions. But then prosperity gave way to crisis: goods do not sell from manufacturers' hands, their profits diminish, the number of bankruptcies increases, factories reduce production, lay off workers, who find themselves on the street in masses without a piece of bread. The workers are compelled to fight desperately now not for improvement of their condition, but for the preservation of the old, for a reduction in those losses which the manufacturer inflicts upon them. Thus the workers' movement deepens and broadens: first, struggle in exceptional individual cases, then stubborn and continuous struggle during the revival of industrial activity and brisk commercial trade, finally – equally continuous and stubborn struggle during a crisis. Now we can already say that the workers' movement has become a permanent phenomenon of our life, that it will grow under any and all conditions.

But the alternation of industrial revival with crisis will teach the workers not only that united struggle has become a permanent necessity for them. This alternation will also destroy those harmful illusions which began to form during the period of industrial prosperity. In some places the workers relatively easily managed to wring concessions from employers through strikes, and the significance of this "economic" struggle began to be exaggerated, and people began to forget that trade (craft) unions of workers and strikes can at best only secure somewhat more favourable conditions for the sale of a commodity: labour-power. Trade unions and strikes are powerless to help when this "commodity" by virtue of a crisis finds no market, are powerless to change those conditions which transform labour-power into a commodity, which condemn the masses of working people to the most severe want and unemployment. To change these conditions requires revolutionary struggle against the entire present social and political order, and the industrial crisis will convince many and many workers of the justice of this truth.

Let us return to the bloody battle of May 7th. Below we present the information at our disposal concerning the May strikes and disturbances of St. Petersburg workers{9}. Here we shall also examine the police report on the battle of May 7th. Of late we have become somewhat accustomed to government (police) reports on strikes, demonstrations, and clashes with troops; we now have quite a bit of material for judging the degree of reliability of such reports, we can sometimes guess at the fire of popular indignation from the smoke of police lies.

"On the 7th of this month of May," states the official report, "after the dinner break, at the Obukhov steel-casting factory in the village of Aleksandrovskoe, along the Schlüsselburg road, approximately 200 workers from various departments of the factory ceased work and, in an explanation with the assistant to the factory chief, Lieutenant Colonel Ivanov, made various unfounded demands."

If the workers ceased work without two weeks' notice – assuming that the cessation of work was not caused by lawlessness on the part of the owners, as very often happens – then this even under Russian law (which of late has been systematically supplemented and strengthened against workers) constitutes a simple police offence subject to a justice of the peace court. But the Russian government increasingly finds itself in a ridiculous position with its severities: on the one hand, laws are issued establishing new crimes (for instance, unauthorized refusal to work or participation in a gathering that damages others' property or violently opposes an armed force), punishments for strikes are increased, etc.; on the other hand, both the physical and political possibility of applying these laws and imposing lawful punishments is lost. There is no physical possibility of bringing to account for refusal to work, for strikes, for "gatherings" thousands and tens of thousands of people. There is no political possibility of conducting a court hearing in each such case, because, no matter how the composition of the court is arranged, no matter how publicity is curtailed, some shadow of a court will remain nonetheless and, of course – not a court over the workers, but a court over the government. And so the criminal laws, issued with the express purpose of facilitating the government's political struggle with the proletariat (and at the same time disguising its political character by means of "state" considerations about "public order," etc.), are inexorably pushed into the background by direct political struggle, open street combat. "Justice" tears off its mask of impartiality and loftiness and takes to flight, leaving the field of action to the police, gendarmes, and Cossacks, who are treated to stones.

Indeed, recall this reference by the government to the workers' "demands." From the standpoint of the law, cessation of work is an offence regardless of what the workers' demands were. But the government has already lost the possibility of taking its stand on the very law which it so recently issued, and the violence "by its own means" it tries to justify by claiming that the workers' demands were unfounded. And who was the judge on this question? Lieutenant Colonel Ivanov, assistant to the factory chief – that is, the very management against which the workers were complaining! It is no wonder that in response to such explanations from those in power the workers answer with stones!

And so, when the workers all poured into the street, stopping the movement of the trams, a real battle began. The workers fought, apparently, with all their might, for they managed twice to repel the assault of the police, gendarmes, mounted guard, and the armed detachment of the factory{3} – and this despite the fact that the workers' only weapon was stones. True, "a few shots" were fired from the crowd, – if we believe the police report, – but no one was wounded by these shots. In contrast, stones rained down "in hail," and the workers displayed not only stubborn resistance but also resourcefulness, ability to adapt immediately to conditions and choose the best form of struggle. They occupied neighboring courtyards and pelted the Tsar's bashizouk with stones from behind fences, so that even after three volleys, by which one (supposedly only one?) worker was killed and eight (?) wounded (one died the following day), even after this, despite the flight of the crowd, the battle still continued, and called-up companies of the Omsk infantry regiment had to "clear workers from" the neighboring courtyards.

The government won. But each such victory will inexorably draw it nearer to its final defeat. Each battle with the people will increase the number of enraged and battle-ready workers, will bring to the fore more experienced, better-armed, more boldly acting leaders. According to what plan should the leaders try to act – on this we have already had occasion to express ourselves. We have already repeatedly pointed to the absolute necessity of a strong revolutionary organization. But in connection with such events as May 7th, the following also must not be lost sight of.

Of late much has been said to the effect that street struggle against the modern army is impossible and hopeless; this has been especially insisted upon by those "critical" smart fellows who palmed off old rubbish of bourgeois learning as new conclusions of impartial science, while distorting the words of Engels, who spoke, and moreover with reservations, only of the temporary tactics of German social-democrats{10}. We see even from the example of a single skirmish that all these arguments are utter nonsense. Street struggle is possible; it is hopeless not the position of the fighters, but the position of the government if it has to deal with the population not of a single factory alone. The workers in the skirmish of May 7th had nothing but stones, – and certainly, an ordinance from the city governor will not prevent them from procuring other weapons next time. The workers were unprepared, and there were only 3½ thousand of them, and nevertheless they repelled several hundreds of mounted guard, gendarmes, police, and infantry. Recall how difficult it was for the police to storm a single house number 63 on the Schlüsselburg road{11}! Consider how difficult it will be to "clear workers from" not two or three courtyards and houses, but entire workers' quarters of St. Petersburg! Will it not be necessary also, when it comes to decisive struggle, to "clear" the capital's houses and courtyards not only of workers, but also of all those who have not forgotten the vile slaughter of March 4th{12}, who have not made peace with the police government, but are only frightened by it and do not yet believe in their own strength.

Comrades! Try to gather the names of all those killed and wounded on May 7th. Let all the workers of the capital honour their memory and prepare for new decisive struggle with the police government for the people's freedom!

*Iskra* No. 5, June 1901

Printed from the text of the newspaper *Iskra*